NARAYAN SHUKLA, J. - (1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioners are seeking their absorption in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'Mandi Parishad').
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that initially petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) and Junior Engineer (Civil) respectively in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in U.P. Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited, Lucknow. Their initial dates of appointment are as 28.7.1981, 13.3.1981 and 1.4.1988 respectively. They have been taken on deputation in Mandi Parishad on different dates i.e. 16.11.1995, 21.1.1996 and 13.6.1995 respectively. Since then they have been working in the department as such. The service conditions of the employees of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad are governed by the U.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officer and Staff Establishment) Regu­lation Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Service Regulation Act'), which per­mits the absorption of deputationist against the post, which is to be filled up through direct recruitment from amongst the qualified and competent persons, who are working on deputation. The Mandi Parishad also took a policy decision to the aforesaid effect, which is not disputed. While working on deputation, in 1996 they applied for permanent absorption in Mandi Parishad by exercising their options in accordance with Rule 5(1) of U. P. Absorption of Government Servants in Public Undertakings Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Absorption Rules'). The opposite party No. 2 i.e. Mandi Parishad sought no objections from their parent departments. The parent department of petitioners 1 and 2, namely, U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited vide its letter dated 18.11.1996 as well as the parent department of opposite party No. 3, namely, U.P. Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Ltd. vide order dated 7.3.1997 submitted their no objection. Thereafter, Mandi Parishad also sought permission of the State Government for their absorp­tion in Mandi Parishad. The State Government through letter dated 26.6.1997 asked the opposite party No. 2 to submit all the proposals regarding absorption, which had matured in view of absorption Rules. Pursuant to that, the opposite party No. 2 submitted the complete pro­posal for absorption of the petitioners for its consent. When the State Govern­ment did not take decision upon that, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition for issuing direction to the State Government to take a decision in the matter. The petitioners have raised question on the discriminatory action of the opposite parties as on the matter of absorption, they have adopted pick and choose policy as they claim that the persons, who have been employee of other State Governments, have been absorbed in Mandi Parishad. It has further been submitted that one, Mr. Nirbhay Narain Singh, who is placed in the proposal list at serial No. 16, whereas petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been placed at serial No. 2 and 3, has been permanently absorbed even without no objection certificate from parent department. Moreover, he was not the employee of the Government of U.P. Similarly, one Mr. Vijay Kumar, who belonged to Rural Works Department, Arunachal Pradesh, has been absorbed in Mandi Parishad by means of order dated 6.5.1997 with the consent letter dated 28.4.1997. The matter of Mr. Nirbhay Narain Singh was placed before the Mandi Parishad on 18.1.2001 but the same was deferred for decision in view of interim order passed by this Court on 17.1.2001 in Writ Petition No. 236 of 2001 (S/S) whereby the Mandi Parishad was restrained from absorbing any deputationist till the employees working in the Mandi Parishad on daily wage basis, are regularised, which was modified by this Court by means of subsequent order dated 17.5.2001 to the extent that it shall be open for the Mandi Parishad to consider the question of absorption of the deputationists with the observation that the decision in the matter of absorption shall neither be communicated nor published.
(3.) IT has also been urged that even without consent of the State Government, one Mr J.K. Singh has also been absorbed in the Mandi Parishad by means of an order dated 19.7.1995. When the petitioners No. 1 and 2 made a fresh represen­tation on 29.8.2001 enumerating all the facts therein before the opposite party No. 2, that resulted an order of repatriation issued by the opposite party No. 2 on 3.9.2001. The petitioners challenged the said order by amending the writ petition and this Court by means of an order dated 18.10.2001 stayed the operation of the order of repatriation. However, the State Government on 6.9.2001 took a decision to cancel the order of repatriation till 30.11.2001. Pursuant to which, the petition­ers have been working and they have not yet been relieved from the office of opposite party No. 2. In the meantime, they further submitted several representa­tions for absorption but none has been considered.;